25 states to welfare moms-Enjoy a year off on us

Tennessee, along with 25 other states offer mom's a year off after having a child before compelling them back to work, or to look for work as part of their welfare requirement.

To all the poverty advocates, regular folks and of course our, equality for everyone in every way crowd, how is this fair in any manner?

If you were a working middle class mom, you would be allowed your maternity leave and then that is it. I've seen most maternity leaves run from about 6 weeks to 4 months. Why should these mom's on welfare get even better treatment with regard to the length of time? In fact in the numerous wage equality discussions on here, we have learned about mothers (more often) and fathers that forgo income to insure the same benefits gained in being there for their children. Why should the state be providing this for some? In my own household, we have forgone the roughly $200,000 she would have earned in the last five years so that we can be there for our kids. On top of that working moms can deduct all sort of things on their taxes while homemaker gets to deducting nothing. There is even a claimed cost savings since it is cheaper for us to PAY people to watch their own children than it is to provide day care for them. (Which is why government shouldn't be in the day care business either)

Also for all the fairness folks, what about Dads? Do they get twelve months where they pay what they are able to give with regard to child support so that they can spend more time with their child? Shouldn't they pay what they are able to instead of what the court compels them to do via full time work? Seperate cannot be equal as some here love to say. Gender shouldn't change the treatment. Isn't it beneficial for the child to form a strong initial bond with the father as well? Why do they tell the woman she may stay home for a year, while marching him off to work under threat of jail time? That certainly is seperate, and of course not equal.

There is even a claimed cost savings since it is cheaper for us to PAY people to watch their own children than it is to provide day care for them. (Which is why government shouldn't be in the day care business either)

Do you believe that the state should have any welfare programs at all?

That's ridculous. trumptman stated perfectly reasonable opinions and positions, and your response is to ask this absurd question. Nothing in his post indicated that states should not have welfare programs. Your post is nothing but attempt to discredit him and twist his arguments.

Do you believe that the state should have any welfare programs at all?

That's a legitimate question, but it's not quite the issue raised by the original post. Although I can't identify with the "men's rights" movement- namely because I think we have some form of a patriarchy in this country- but i can identify with gender equality. Only giving mothers a year off from work is highly discriminatory and disservices both genders. We must not perpetuate the stereotype (and unfortunate economic reality) that men are the primary income-earners and women are the primary care-givers. A man is not just a paycheck and a woman is not just a housewife. Our laws must reflect that simple "philosophy" if you can call it that. I think we can all find a lot of common ground here.

This is as idioitic (economically) as nationalized healthcare. It's not good for society and it even worse for the people it attracts. No incentive to behave, but all the incentive in the world to let the state be the dad.

But then lotteries are used in most states to rob from the poor---may it's just as well.

That's because I'm not going to blindly look at one small facet of the equation.

The overall question of welfare is certainly important to the thread because if we decide that yes, welfare overall is important, then I say let those in charge of the program come up with a balanced option. They've said it's cheaper this way and best for the kids. Their reasons sound reasonable and I don't have any reason to disagree.

If Nick wants basically no welfare system then any program that they come up with is bad and the thread is pointless.

EIther way pulling one piece of the entire system out and claiming it's terrible is limiting your view and knowledge of the system. Making a decision based off of that biased view is relying on ignorance. I'd rather not.

That's because I'm not going to blindly look at one small facet of the equation.

The overall question of welfare is certainly important to the thread because if we decide that yes, welfare overall is important, then I say let those in charge of the program come up with a balanced option. They've said it's cheaper this way and best for the kids. Their reasons sound reasonable and I don't have any reason to disagree.

If Nick wants basically no welfare system then any program that they come up with is bad and the thread is pointless.

EIther way pulling one piece of the entire system out and claiming it's terrible is limiting your view and knowledge of the system. Making a decision based off of that biased view is relying on ignorance. I'd rather not.

Likewise claiming criticism of one piece means a lack of support for, or a desire to destroy the entire system is just as invalid.

I didn't claim the women shouldn't get assistance with the medical needs associated with having the child. I didn't claim they should get NO maternity leave or help. Finally I didn't say they were evil, wretched, or bad for having a child and needing assistance.

I said it is simply wrong to give those who need assistance more help than those who are having to work to provide that assistance. If a single working mom who is above the poverty line gets pregnant, and takes maternity leave, she gets 6 weeks to 4 months. Why should the mom on welfare get a year? It is a valid question.

Additionally many Democrats and Republicans have pushed bills that are gender neutral with regard to being able to take leave for family needs. Clinton signed the FAMILY leave act, not the MOTHER LEAVE act. I was quite fair in pointing out that the father gets no form of paternity leave. Couldn't we simply say the mother and father get 6 weeks of assistance to split as they see fit and consider that more fair?

You simply choose not to address the very valid criticism. Instad you claim you don't have to think about it or address it since you think I don't support welfare at all. It is, as I mentioned with Pfflam, a fallacy that you would prefer to use. You wish to dismiss instead of discuss.

Welfare has been fully adulterated since its introduction. Even you should be able to realize that, bunge. There's a difference between a safety net and a hammock, and it's hard for me to understand the nature of this. If you're in the shithouse financially, you really shouldn't be having kids anyway. The abdication of responsibility in the individual is leading to more and more problems with welfare and social security.

I said it is simply wrong to give those who need assistance more help than those who are having to work to provide that assistance. If a single working mom who is above the poverty line gets pregnant, and takes maternity leave, she gets 6 weeks to 4 months. Why should the mom on welfare get a year? It is a valid question.

Any woman can take a [year] off, it just means they can't necessarily go back to the same job. A woman on welfare doesn't get to go back to the same job, does she?

And I do understand the difference between a safety net and a hammock, but anyone that thinks welfare is a hammock is slightly deluded.

Since the state is going to continue giving child care, it's cheaper to let a woman stay and home than it is to make her go back to a crap job. That's a reasonable argument.

Any woman can take a month off, it just means they can't necessarily go back to the same job. A woman on welfare doesn't get to go back to the same job, does she?

And I do understand the difference between a safety net and a hammock, but anyone that thinks welfare is a hammock is slightly deluded.

Since the state is going to continue giving child care, it's cheaper to let a woman stay and home than it is to make her go back to a crap job. That's a reasonable argument.

A woman on welfare is already not working. You can't "take a month off" from work, if you aren't working. You make her state sound like a scheduling hardship. You make it sound like she still has some sort of scheduling conflict to overcome.

Since the state is continuing to give child care.... How about the state give a bulletin board instead. On this bulletin board you post times you can trade child care with other people. You know, like what I or my wife have to do with family and friends when we have to attend to matters away from our children. What ever did we do before the government gave us everything? I guess children must have been kept grazing in fields or something like that.

Or, how about GASP, she leave the child with the... DRUM ROLL PLEASE... the FATHER. I know foreign concept, children with their father, but it COULD be a solution. They could, I know this is shocking, work on different days and different times and then... again I know... scary concept, CARE for their children when they are not working.

Really revolutionary cutting edge stuff I know, but I think society might be ready for it. I mean they accepted interracial marriage so they could probably accept the idea of the parents of the children actually caring for and raising them with the "village" being brought into the mix by trading times with other people in a similar circumstance.

He understood it. He is just being a bit stubborn lately. He was implying the FMLA isn't necessary since the working woman could just quit where as the welfare woman couldn't quit welfare so it is a scheduling hardship that she wishes she had to deal with.